I don't want a third party. I want multiple viable candidates who aren't essentially written off by the media. I think John Adams was right on the money when he said: “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.” This, IMO, is exactly what we have today. Two parties more focused on fighting the "other guy" instead of focusing on doing what is best for the country. We weren't always a two party system, and there's no reason it has to remain one.

Sorry TDJ, but you'll never get that until you get corporate interests, and big money out of politics, and that will never happen. Furthermore, you'd have to get some sort of check to the Liberal bias in the media, and that will never happen as well.

Even if we got a 3rd party they would still form an "organization," be perverted with money, and there would be no true transparency, and they would still be lambasted in areas that the Liberal media didn't agree with them.

October 30th, 2012, 12:56 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Who will you vote for?

Pablo wrote:

wjb21ndtown wrote:

Now you're just being ridiculous. The "Cold War" existed from 1947 until 1991, so ALL of them have presided under a "war" of some sort? That's just flat out stupid. JFK oversaw the escalation of Vietnam into a war, but you're going to blame it on Nixon?

This whole "war monger" thing falls on two presidents shoulders, both named Bush, yet you want to assign the moniker to the whole Republican Party. That's flat out ridiculous.

I'm following proof. Think I'm being ridiculous, look at "Cold War" spending by Regan vs. any other president. As for the democrats in office that I remember, did Carter, Clinton, or Obama declare war on anyone of note?

So now it's who spent more?

Regan spent a LOAD on the military because the military was ignored for 30+ years. Our military was literally falling apart. Regan used the military much the same way that Obama used "shovel ready projects" to stimulate the economy, the only difference was there was far less corruption under Regan's spending, and Regan's spending ACTUALLY WORKED!

Pablo wrote:

wjb21ndtown wrote:

Consider this... If there was an established 3rd party it would likely only pull votes away from one party, dived that one party it was most closely aligned to, and empower the party that most people DON'T want in office!!!

Short term thinking is not the answer to a long term solution. Honestly, I hope everyone soon starts to put the outrageous spending as our #1 issue period. I don't care if you are Dem or Rep, we need to think about where we are heading as a country if this continues. The other issues are becoming secondary to me at this point because I deeply care about our place in the world. We can be great, but it will take sacrifice and tough decisions - something neither of the two current parties has show any ability to do.

You are so worried about losing an election that you have a 50/50 (if not better chance) of losing anyway that you can't begin to strive for long-term change to put this country back on track.

No, it's not short-term thinking to a long-term problem, it's actual REAL problems that would exist if we DID get an established 3rd party. I'm not talking about THIS election Pablo, I'm saying that going forward with an established 3rd party likely leaves the LEAST desirable candidate in office, period.

October 30th, 2012, 1:00 pm

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 10022Location: Dallas

Re: Who will you vote for?

First, yes this is about spending and the debt. You try to justify it for the GOP because it is for war. My point, the GOP always has a war and therefore always has something to overspend on. This is like the DEMs always having entitlement programs to spend on. So YES, this is about spending. Keep trying to justify it, just like the other party does - the end result is the EXACT same, more debt which WILL eventually lead to the economic collapse of the USA.

Second, the "least" desirable candidate is according to who? Oh yeah, you... IMO the "least" desirable candidate is any who will continue down this same path - this means EITHER Coke or Pepsi - take your pick.

If your "least" desirable candidate gets in, that means more debt. If the other guys "least" desirable candidate gets in, taht means more debt. The answer is the same - more debt either way, period.

Forget about electing the least of the "least" desirables. How about actually starting to build something that is actually desirable?

First, yes this is about spending and the debt. You try to justify it for the GOP because it is for war. My point, the GOP always has a war and therefore always has something to overspend on. This is like the DEMs always having entitlement programs to spend on. So YES, this is about spending. Keep trying to justify it, just like the other party does - the end result is the EXACT same, more debt which WILL eventually lead to the economic collapse of the USA.

Second, the "least" desirable candidate is according to who? Oh yeah, you... IMO the "least" desirable candidate is any who will continue down this same path - this means EITHER Coke or Pepsi - take your pick.

If your "least" desirable candidate gets in, that means more debt. If the other guys "least" desirable candidate gets in, taht means more debt. The answer is the same - more debt either way, period.

Forget about electing the least of the "least" desirables. How about actually starting to build something that is actually desirable?

Your point is false, you use the Vietnam war and the "Cold War" to make your point, the Republicans didn't start the Vietnam War, and the Cold War encompasses every President since '47. Regan had to make up for 30 years of neglect. His spending on the military isn't like entitlement spending. We're still reaping the benefits of Regan's military spending, and it ceased literally decades ago. Entitlement spending does nothing but grow, defense spending stops. Spending on the military is much more like spending on roads and bridges. A certain amount needs to be spent, and Dems and Reps can bicker over how much (most dems spend too little, most reps spend too much), but at the end of the day it's all peanuts compared to what we're spending on welfare, food stamps, health care, etc. War time spending is a different story, but you can't say Republicans are the party of "war," when it's only the two Bush's that have found themselves in conflict in the last 40 years.

With a 3rd party candidate we would end up with a winner that is the "least" desirable candidate to the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS. Why? Because the other more popular parties are going to spit their vote, leading the rubbish to victory.

October 30th, 2012, 2:54 pm

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 10022Location: Dallas

Re: Who will you vote for?

wjb21ndtown wrote:

defense spending stops

In what alternate universe do you live in?

Again, you can continue to ignore past results thinking the future is going to be different...

Again, you can continue to ignore past results thinking the future is going to be different...

That includes war spending, which is ending.

Pablo wrote:

wjb21ndtown wrote:

leading the rubbish to victory

Blue/Red, Coke/Pepsi, Dem/Rep - both are proven rubbish my friend.

Pablo, with a 3rd party candidate, all you're going to end up with is whichever major party (Coke or Pepsi) that gets the least amount of votes stolen from them, i.e. leaving you with one choice, not three, and it will be the party of the minority, i.e. the party that is least preferred.

Last edited by wjb21ndtown on October 30th, 2012, 4:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

October 30th, 2012, 3:51 pm

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 10022Location: Dallas

Re: Who will you vote for?

Actually, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been primarily funded through supplementary spending bills outside the Federal Budget, so they are not included in the defense budget figures (until 2010) - another nice way for the Dems and Reps to distort the truth.

BTW - look at the drastic drops in defense spending after previous wars ended (I'm being sarcastic, because you won't see big drops if any) - for example, look at spending during the 70's after Vietnam ended - and show me how the spending stops!!!

Actually, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been primarily funded through supplementary spending bills outside the Federal Budget, so they are not included in the defense budget figures (until 2010) - another nice way for the Dems and Reps to distort the truth.

BTW - look at the drastic drops in defense spending after previous wars ended (I'm being sarcastic, because you won't see big drops if any) - for example, look at spending during the 70's after Vietnam ended - and show me how the spending stops!!!

If Afg. and Iraq aren't included how do you explain the sharp increase after 2001, and the sharp subsequent increases after Obama takes office?

October 30th, 2012, 4:02 pm

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 10022Location: Dallas

Re: Who will you vote for?

wjb21ndtown wrote:

Pablo wrote:

Actually, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been primarily funded through supplementary spending bills outside the Federal Budget, so they are not included in the defense budget figures (until 2010) - another nice way for the Dems and Reps to distort the truth.

BTW - look at the drastic drops in defense spending after previous wars ended (I'm being sarcastic, because you won't see big drops if any) - for example, look at spending during the 70's after Vietnam ended - and show me how the spending stops!!!

If Afg. and Iraq aren't included how do you explain the sharp increase after 2001, and the sharp subsequent increases after Obama takes office?

Because we made significant investments in counter-terrorism as a result of 911. Our homeland security falls under the defense budget...

The following is brought to you by Pablo, although listed under WJB (see EDIT below, my bad)...

Your rigth WJB, I fault them both!

Here's the thing, it is about balancing a budget. Let's say a theif breaks into my house. You wouldn't fault me for buying a gun and alarm system would you? Of course not.

Now, if you were a creditor and I failed to make any adjustments to the rest of my budget (for example I kept eating out at the same rate, taking vacations, etc.) and the additional expenses simply were paid for by taking out credit card debt that I couldn't repay because I didn't have the funds does that make it right? Of course not and therein lies the problem. Sure, you aren't going to fault me for trying to protect my family but I'm an idiot for paying for these simply taking on debt and not balancing my budget elsewhere.

Now imagine I'm already in tons of debt and I do the same thing (and military debt alone costs us billions a year). Well now you see what kind of idiots the Rep/Dems represent.

EDIT - Sorry WJB I hit edit your response instead of quote (a problem for those of use with MOD power). I lost your response which basically justified spending on counter terrorism as a response to 911 and had some good points which I removed by accident.

October 30th, 2012, 4:10 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Who will you vote for?

Something got screwed up... I didn't post the above message...

I fault them both too, as I said. I wouldn't have wanted us to go as far as we did, institute the measures we did, etc. There were/are FAR, FAR easier ways to ensure that someone never hi-jacks a plane again that doesn't impede our freedoms our threaten our security.

That said, instituting a 3rd party isn't going to fix that.

October 30th, 2012, 4:24 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Who will you vote for?

PHUCKIN COMMUNIST SCUM!!!!

I'm just kidding Pablo. NBD about the error.

October 30th, 2012, 4:25 pm

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 10022Location: Dallas

Re: Who will you vote for?

wjb21ndtown wrote:

PHUCKIN COMMUNIST SCUM!!!!

I'm just kidding Pablo. NBD about the error.

LOL WJB... See what happens when you concentrate to much power in one place!

LOL WJB... See what happens when you concentrate to much power in one place!

That's why my favorite form of government is a grid-locked Congress and a Democrat President!

Nothing gets done, which is exactly the way I like it. If the actual citizens could get an up and down vote on the legislation that comes out of D.C. nearly none of this poop would pass.

October 30th, 2012, 4:33 pm

Blueskies

QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 3121

Re: Who will you vote for?

Quote:

Your point is false, you use the Vietnam war and the "Cold War" to make your point, the Republicans didn't start the Vietnam War, and the Cold War encompasses every President since '47. Regan had to make up for 30 years of neglect. His spending on the military isn't like entitlement spending. We're still reaping the benefits of Regan's military spending, and it ceased literally decades ago. Entitlement spending does nothing but grow, defense spending stops. Spending on the military is much more like spending on roads and bridges. A certain amount needs to be spent, and Dems and Reps can bicker over how much (most dems spend too little, most reps spend too much), but at the end of the day it's all peanuts compared to what we're spending on welfare, food stamps, health care, etc. War time spending is a different story, but you can't say Republicans are the party of "war," when it's only the two Bush's that have found themselves in conflict in the last 40 years.

There are couple of underlying assumptions here I would dispute.

First, you assume that defense/war spending has some kind of positive return. It doesn't. Military spending has long-term negative consequences. Our construction bases in Saudi Arabia, for example, leads to catastrophes like 9/11. Our funding of foreign dictators stirs up resentment against our country. Every engineer that works for the military isn't an engineer that could work for an auto company or an electronics company. Military spending is wasteful and damaging. No doubt it is a necessary evil to some extent, but we way overspent and have overspent for the last 50 years. The military budget should be across-the-board cut by at least 50% tomorrow.

Second, I personally don't agree with the line of reasoning, but any intelligent liberal would turn your argument around on you very easily. You say that entitlement spending is a waste of money and has no social returns -- liberals would argue that it creates a better society which fosters a higher standard of living and a more civilized nation. Keeping old people off the street through social security, for example, creates a society where we hold ourselves to a certain level of responsibility.